(영문) 대법원 2018.1.25.선고 2014도13344 판결

1. In relation to co-offenders who jointly process two or more persons in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons in a crime. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to do so in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established between several persons. In addition, even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, a person who is subject to criminal liability for the conduct of another person as a co-principal. Such conspiracy may be recognized in accordance with the circumstantial facts and empirical rules even if there was no direct evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do4606, Jun. 28, 2012; 2012Do10629, Jan. 24, 2013).

action in breach of the duty of breach of trust means the content and nature of the business to be dealt with;

In light of the specific circumstances, the purpose of the crime of breach of trust is not to obtain property benefits from himself or a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do4923, Mar. 14, 2000; 9Do4923, Mar. 14, 2000; 9Do4923, Mar. 14, 2000; 2000Do4781, May 26, 2000). Such recognition is sufficient to have do so with an incomplete perception, and it is sufficient to establish an indirect fact that is reasonably related to the crime of breach of trust, such as an intentional act of breach of trust, and an indirect fact that is reasonably related to the crime of breach of trust, in light of the nature of the crime of breach of trust, if the defendant denies the criminal intent of breach of trust, or there is a perception that he or she or a third party gains property benefits from him or her (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1400.

Meanwhile, if an employee of a financial institution extended a loan without taking reasonable and reasonable measures such as being provided with sufficient security to ensure the recovery of loan claims in the course of lending, it is deemed that there was a perception that the employee would have obtained property benefits from a third party and suffered damage to the financial institution by breach of duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5679, Feb. 11, 2003, etc.).

2. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not have any intention in breach of trust or any conspiracy with H, etc., based on the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was appointed as an executive of the Victim K Co., Ltd; (b) relationship with executives of H, a major shareholder; (c) content of the Defendant’s statement in the investigation agency and the court of first instance; (d) content of the Defendant’s partial statement in the investigation agency; and (e) the process at the time, and the content of the Defendant’s statement in the investigation agency of the CS; and (e) determined that

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.